To ask if you are not a Christian, what non Christian values you live by?

[BlossomBlanket]

Just that really!

No, I'm sorry, you actually said this:

The bits about treating your slaves nicely are the absolute prime example of that - Christians really should be saying 'yep, that was revolutionary in the context of its time, but we're a little bit beyond that'.

And now you're deflecting onto what you think is an easy win for you. How about if you first have the humility to accept that this was total bollocks?

Did I read the article? No, I don't need to read an article by apologists trying to justify slavery. Slavery is slavery. I notice that yet again you avoid the real issue. Do you think it is acceptable to own a slave and be able to beat them to death? Do you think it is acceptable to own someone and pass them on as property to your family?
As for jesus being the Messiah, what evidence do you have for that claim?

I don't think you have read the article properly. It clearly tells you how to trick someone into being a slave for life, how is that moral. The. Six years as a slave only applies to Hebrew slaves, slaves from other nations are your property for life. I don't care what you call it, owning a person that you can beat to death is wrong.

I can't see how anyone claiming to be a Christian and following Christ's teaching to love thy neighbour as thyself could attempt to justify slavery. I'm aware that there are a subset of fundamentalists who read the Bible including the Old Testament literally but I don't think they should be seen as representing Christianity as a whole. I think it's sad that a certain type of Bible belt Christianity sees itself as being the only true way.

You're pulling part of what I said out of context, which is a tactic certain Christian groups do so like to use.

The article posted by @Fathomsbelow is a weaselly apologist screed justifying slavery by saying 'well, but Christians treated their slaves well'.

Why didn't they just free them?

And why are modern Christians not saying that actually, that bit of the Bible is still not a bloody great example of how people should treat each other?

What I said was not bollocks. I called you out, you didn't like it.

This is the thing that bothers me about Jesus as the son of God.

If Jesus was not the son of God, then he was a very good and progressive man by the standards of the times he was living in.

If, though, he was the son of God, then being good "by the standards of the time" really does not cut it. Unless you don't see slavery as a tremendous evil (and, of course, most do) then the failure to denounce it is extremely troubling.

The bottom line is that you can't justify slavery. The problem for believers is that the bible clearly does condone it. Rather than admit that their so called holy book advocates a morally reprehensible position, they tap dance around the topic trying to claim that was is clearly in text means something else. Until relatively recently the bible was actually used to justify slavery .

This is when you know it’s all make believe. According to the nativity story the parents are Mary and Joseph. As Mary was apparently a virgin, it’s obviously all made up.

And then you can look at other Christian denominations, such as the Latter Day Saints / Mormons. Who follow a religion made up by a man who apparently found some plates with the rules for the new religion on them, then lost them when he hid them from everyone else, but could remember it and wrote the rules down differently to when he first did it.

Joseph Smith. A man who was known to like multiple women, of a young age. And somehow just "happened" across some plates telling him this was allowed by God.

And people believed it enough to allow an entire faith to come to be.

Called me out how? I'm confused as to how you could possibly be calling me out. You know literally nothing about me beyond your own assumptions which I can pretty much guarantee are false, particularly now you're making sly references to the tactics used by 'certain Christian groups'.

Are you calling me out for an article someone else posted? Assuming I'm some sort of Biblical literalist homophobe, what is it you think you're calling out?

And you clearly don't know much about modern Christians if you think they're waxing lyrical about Old Testament slavery. You're still suggesting that Christians should be (and by implication, aren't) saying 'that bit of the Bible isn't a great example of how people should treat each other'. It's actually hilarious. So not really taking you out of context.

I look forward to further mental gymnastics rather than you admitting you said something ridiculous out of your own thoughtless bigotry.

You know full well that there are plenty of Christians who will say that every word of the Bible is the word of their god. I never said you are one of those, but if you really think there are no such people, you aren't paying attention. I'm not bigoted against Christians - I seem to recall posting in this very thread that I know multiple people who have found recovery from addiction through finding faith and I think that is great.

But the fact of the matter is that the Bible has been and still is used as a tool of oppression and persecution. You and I can probably agree that the people who use it that way are not in any meaningful way Christian. But they see that quite differently.

You jumped into this debate with a strawman when what I was doing was criticising the link posted by @Fathomsbelow . The fact that stuff like this is still posted online by self-professed Christians is evidence enough that some people just will not accept that their holy book is deeply flawed.

Christians don’t own the values that they see as Christian.

And having those values doesn’t make you Christian.

Well, I've now read the article and can't see where it justifies slavery. You seem to be wilfully missing the point being made, which was actually the opposite of what you're claiming. The article is basically saying yep, that was revolutionary in the context of its time, but we're a little bit beyond that But because somebody provides historical context, that's a weaselly apologist screed? Ok.
Of course there are people who believe the Bible is the literal word of God. And some of them, like you, don't do nuance very well. They're a tiny minority though, and your suggestion otherwise is pretty bizarre.

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that if slavery is wrong, why did those early Christians nevertheless go along with it? Historical context is a red herring here, because slavery is always wrong. It was then, it is now, it always will be. The Bible does not acknowledge this; instead it exhorts people to treat their slaves nicely. That. Is. Not. Good. Enough.

I also think people conflate their modern-day interpretation of Jesus' teaching with "Christian values".

Perhaps Jesus preached "radical equality", but Christians have seldom put that into practice.

At various times (including some during the modern day), various forms of Christianity have espoused male superiority, white supremacy (including slavery), hatred of LGBT people and have participated in genocides.

General understandings of equality, morality and ethics have improved over time, inside and outside of the Church, through the general ongoing societal dialogue of what is and what is not acceptable.

The fact that some Christians in other parts of the world continue to engage in practices that modern European people, Christian or not, consider morally appalling shows that Christianity does not only influence wider society but is heavily influenced by it.

Because what you're asking for would be essentially for a tiny religious sect with no power or influence to try and upend the entire economic and social system they were living in. I'm not sure why you have that expectation, but the New Testament does condemn slave trading and does a lot to subvert the prevailing social distinctions of the time. Maybe you could extend them a little grace, given that you're standing on the shoulders of Christian giants like William Wilberforce with your confident assertions that almost certainly wouldn't have entered your head if you'd been born a few centuries ago.

Edit: erasing random word.

No, what I'm asking is simple:

1. For the Christians of the day to choose not to own slaves. They didn't have to. It wasn't compulsory.
2. For modern Christians reading the Bible to admit that those Christians back in the day fell short.

Hypothetical nonsense about what anyone would have done had they been alive back then is irrelevant. On this thread, we have Christians claiming that they more or less own good morals and ethics. They don't. That is the whole point of those of us who are disagreeing with the OP.

Hmm, I don't see any Christians on this thread claiming to own good morals and ethics. What people have pointed out is that many of our assumptions about moral behaviour do come from our cultural heritage, which is a Christian one. Slavery would be a good example of how ethical ideas aren't universal, so it follows that it should be pretty uncontroversial to acknowledge the foundational ideas on which our society is built, whether or not you are a follower of the Christian faith.

To address your point:

1. On behalf of early Christians, I apologise for the oversight. Many more of them would have been slaves than slave owners, but not every good idea happens all at once, and we could all wish that the abolition movement happened a lot sooner.
2. As far as I'm aware, they do admit that, but once again you seem to be in fierce battle with the imaginary Christians in your head, so I think I'll leave you to it at this point.

Edit: SPAG

Again you choose to misunderstand me - and the entire point of this thread. Why am I not surprised?

The Christians on this thread claim that the morality we have, at least in the West, is rooted in Christianity. Those of us who are not Christians have simply pointed out that this morality is actually far older than that and rooted in the tenets that make a society function and thus contribute to the survival of the species. We take the stance that the moral tenets that keep society functional and species survival in place are innate, not due to religion.

I believe the Old Testament laws are relevant but not necessarily applicable today @pointythings.
For example, the ceremonial and civil laws like not eating shellfish and not mixing fabrics were part of God's covenant with the people of Israel. The moral laws, such as those against sexual immorality and killing are for all people, forever. This is reiterated throughout the New Testament e.g. in Acts 15.

Yes, you do take that stance, even while providing counterexamples to your own argument. I'm not misunderstanding anything.

Again, please provide me with the actual verses you are unhappy with.

As for jesus being the Messiah, what evidence do you have for that claim?

I don't need evidence and sadly doubt you would be convinced by any, even if Jesus was to knock on your own door tonight. For the benefit of others who might be interested in learning something however, I will attempt to answer your question.

On behalf of early Christians, I apologise for the oversight. Many more of them would have been slaves than slave owners, but not every good idea happens all at once, and we could all wish that the abolition movement happened a lot sooner.
I don't know if you mean "early Christians" in the sense of the period generally considered "early Christianity" (which would generally be the 1st-4th century CE) but as late as the 15th-16th century (the early modern period), the Roman Catholic Church was actively encouraging slavery.

It wasn't until the late 19th century, after slavery had been abolished in various nations (UK included) did the Roman Catholic Church finally condemn slavery (and some Christian churches continued to defend the practice regardless).

To add, I'm aware that various Christians (Catholic or otherwise) were staunch and influential abolitionists, but Christian opposition to slavery is, in relative terms, quite modern. You can't help but wonder how much misery could have been averted, over many centuries, had Jesus denounced the practice of slavery.

I'm not the PP you were responding to, but if Jesus appeared today, and could prove he was the son of God, I'd believe seeing it with my own eyes and the evidence provided.

I need solid, hard, evidence in order to accept something as a fact. Anything else is possible !as you cannot prove a negative) but without evidence is unlikely to be true.

This is what most people asking for evidence are like. It's not a blanket "no evidence, not real". It's just a "I can't believe that without seeing something to make it true".

Is it not equally absurd to believe in nothing at all though? Pure materialism does not hold - the atheist view is as weakly evidenced. We cannot know.